Fire in the Chunnel
- Thread starter dmdrake
- Start date
Red_Rattler
Since 09 May 2003
UM NO! Australia is one of the best places for media beat ups - especially the Murdoch (cough, cough, ur cough - he's right-wing) media.lewisner said:
But why not open the emergency crossover doors, and send the trains in the tunnel that wasn't affected using the single line method?
ex-railwayman
New member
Well, not quite, it appears that the spokeswoman who made the quote hasn't got a clue what she's talking about, she's sat in her nice cosy office sipping copious amounts of coffee, whilst the firefighters have been tackling the blaze ALL NIGHT and they're still there at 10.30 am this morning, so another cock-up by the Chunnel staff who obviously try to dampen the shareholders fears before anyone else.......
Cheerz. ex.
We're booked on our return trip tomorrow (Saturday) evening. At the moment we are advised to travel to Calais ferry terminals, but we have a 24hr phone number for info. I think they're operating STACK at the moment, but we can be flexible in our travel times if required, so can stay here a bit longer if they want....... such hardship!
Chris.
Chris.
Seems it was a pretty major fire. Over 300 firefighters fought the fire overnight before bringing it under control (16 hours until it was put out). 14 persons were injured (six from smoke inhalation), and service will be suspended at least through Friday, and won't be resumed until they can get inside to assess the damage. Passengers were locked inside the train, and had to smash windows to escape. Now they're saying its possible some traffic may resume Friday, but the North tunnel will be closed for several weeks.
I have just received a special issue of "Eurotunnel on track" concerning the effects of the fire on tunnel performance.
After the last fire in 1996 it took a month before the tunnel was back in operation. This time it took just 30 hours (without compromising safety) with full services operating within three days.
The cost implications of the fire are covered by insurance of up to £900 millions (the premium for this is not stated!) This covers the cost of repairs and lost revenue.
A freight train consists of 30 coaches, a locomotive at each end, three loading coaches and a club car. All truck drivers ride in the club car which is immediately behind the lead loco and this is followed by the 'flat car' type loading coach so there is a clear gap of one coach behind the club car. In the event of a fire being detected the driver either continues out of the tunnel (if near the portal) into a special fire fighting area, or stops in the tunnel adjacent to a service tunnel access door, as happened this time. The tunnel ventilation is also adjusted to blow smoke away from the front of the train.
The service tunnel is isolated from the running tunnels by fireproof access doors and side passages and special fire fighting and evacuation vehicles can operate in the tunnel.
Trucks are carried in open type coaches which is fine as long as hazardous cargos are not being carried. It seems to me that trucks carrying hazardous materials should now be carried in special fully enclosed coaches equipped with CO2 gas (as used in electricity substations) There will undoubtedly be an enquiry into the incident to learn what the problem was and to examine how effective the fire fighting and emergency systems were and whether any improvements can be made, so perhaps the use of open coaches will be reviewed. The decision will not be made solely by the tunnel operators BTW but the respective governmet agencies responsible for enforcing safe operation.
You may be interested to know that it is planned that the flame for the London Olympics will be carried on foot through the service tunnel by a marathon runner.
Les
Last edited:
Yes - very interesting and informative. Perhaps hazzardous material shouldn't be carried thru the chunnel. Solve a lot of safety concerns for certain. Make them take a specially outfitted ferry.
Bet that will be a slightly scary run for the olympic torch bearer, lol.
Ben
Bet that will be a slightly scary run for the olympic torch bearer, lol.
Ben
The reason I made the point about media overkill is that (at least in the UK) we all know that the media is heavily biased against railways and loves to have a dig whenever they can.For instance, about 1.5 years ago here in York a car driver (for no apparent reason) drove his car through the fence at the site of an old level crossing and into the path of a Virgin train.In the media it was presented as a "major train crash" and "the railways should have more safeguards" etc.The obvious conclusion was that the car driver committed suicide but as usual it was the railways fault!"Bendorsey" the railways in general have a safety record second to none so if you didn't carry nuclear waste by rail I would have to ask by what means you would carry it? IMO we shouldn't even HAVE nuclear waste, given that there is still an estimated 100 years of coal under the ground and the only way you can be hurt by coal is if someone throws a lump at you.Anyway, I have finished my rant..
Hi lewisner:
I wasn't saying hazzardous material shouldn't be carried by rail and you are certainly correct there really is no other way to transport it as
efficient as by rail. Its just that the chunnel, since is such a unique item, perhaps for safety reasons another method would be a better choice. As efficient? Not by a long shot. Safer in the chunnel? - Very.
A fire in a normal railroad tunnel bad as that can be doesn't have the potential for disaster as the chunnel. Most are single track but the chunnel has 3. With the right combination of time, place, material, ect. an absolute disaster could occur. Even with the extraordinary safety and security provisions in the chunnel it only takes one. Hazzardous material is the easiest part of the equation to remove. You might get a fire from fuel tanks in the loco, cars, or trucks but the extreamly toxic material (liquid chlorine for example) wouldn't be there. A spill of some of the most toxic and chemically active liquids would be almost impossible to fight. Some of it can dissolve protective clothing then the firemen themselves (not a pleasant thought but true) and some are so toxic exposure is measured in seconds.
What about liquid propane tank cars and other highly flammable and explosive materials? These are bombs on bogies. Under the right conditions they can become fuel-air-explosives. Calling them gigantic kabooms is an understatement. In Vietnam they were used to blow helicopter landing areas in the forest. 150 to 200 ft in diameter and they were 1/10 the capacity of what a tank car can carry. Might even be sufficient to breach the the channel sea floor. There are no words to describe how big a disaster that could be.
Nuclear waste thru the chunnel doesn't bother me in the least. The containers are so solidly constructed, nothing short of a nuke can breach them. There was a program on either the science channel or discovery channel (our telly that is) showing them deliberetly trying to breach one of the transport containers. They had a hard time even denting it. They are that solidly made.
Not trying to start an argument here. Its just I don't think the d__m stuff should be allowed in the chunnel in the first place.
Ben
I wasn't saying hazzardous material shouldn't be carried by rail and you are certainly correct there really is no other way to transport it as
efficient as by rail. Its just that the chunnel, since is such a unique item, perhaps for safety reasons another method would be a better choice. As efficient? Not by a long shot. Safer in the chunnel? - Very.
A fire in a normal railroad tunnel bad as that can be doesn't have the potential for disaster as the chunnel. Most are single track but the chunnel has 3. With the right combination of time, place, material, ect. an absolute disaster could occur. Even with the extraordinary safety and security provisions in the chunnel it only takes one. Hazzardous material is the easiest part of the equation to remove. You might get a fire from fuel tanks in the loco, cars, or trucks but the extreamly toxic material (liquid chlorine for example) wouldn't be there. A spill of some of the most toxic and chemically active liquids would be almost impossible to fight. Some of it can dissolve protective clothing then the firemen themselves (not a pleasant thought but true) and some are so toxic exposure is measured in seconds.
What about liquid propane tank cars and other highly flammable and explosive materials? These are bombs on bogies. Under the right conditions they can become fuel-air-explosives. Calling them gigantic kabooms is an understatement. In Vietnam they were used to blow helicopter landing areas in the forest. 150 to 200 ft in diameter and they were 1/10 the capacity of what a tank car can carry. Might even be sufficient to breach the the channel sea floor. There are no words to describe how big a disaster that could be.
Nuclear waste thru the chunnel doesn't bother me in the least. The containers are so solidly constructed, nothing short of a nuke can breach them. There was a program on either the science channel or discovery channel (our telly that is) showing them deliberetly trying to breach one of the transport containers. They had a hard time even denting it. They are that solidly made.
Not trying to start an argument here. Its just I don't think the d__m stuff should be allowed in the chunnel in the first place.
Ben
bernhart_lossiemouth
New member
Are they going to build any more channel tunnels? Europe to America maybe? Or Spain to Africa? Or Ireland to Britain?
Bendorsey, I have no specific knowledge about the Tunnel but it seems to me that when any hazardous materials were being transported a sensible precaution would be that when a hazardous cargo entered the Tunnel, another train should not be allowed in until the first train has cleared.If you want to transport ANY type of hazardous substance you have a choice - Air (no thanks), Ship (safe but slow) . Road (very unsafe) , or Rail (regulated to the hilt and totally safe.As it is most of it is carried by road and when accident happens it makes page 5 in the papers and is quickly forgotten about.
Not in our life times.
A tunnel at Gibralter isn't practical as the strait is quite deep. 800 to 1000 ft I belive. A gigantic suspension bridge has been proposed and would be a much better choice. Its probably possible today. Be one heck of a big engineering project but I believe it could be done.
Europe to North America is impossible due to the mid-atlantic ridge.
Ireland to Britain should be possible. Longer then the chunnel but geologically stable I believe but would the traffic justify it? I wouldn't think so.
Alaska to Russia cross the bearing straits might also be possible. A series of gigantic suspenson bridges has been considered but a chunnel is actually a better choice. Not a tremendously geologically active region and a chunnel avoids the ice problem. Economically the traffic might justify it but the cost would be beyond belief.At least twice the length of the chunnel - possibly three times the distance.
Connecting the Japanese islands is also probably not possible for geological reasons (earthquakes).
The north and south islands of new Zealand might be possible but I don't know the geological situation in that area.
Probably other locations where its possible but not worth the cost.
Ben
A tunnel at Gibralter isn't practical as the strait is quite deep. 800 to 1000 ft I belive. A gigantic suspension bridge has been proposed and would be a much better choice. Its probably possible today. Be one heck of a big engineering project but I believe it could be done.
Europe to North America is impossible due to the mid-atlantic ridge.
Ireland to Britain should be possible. Longer then the chunnel but geologically stable I believe but would the traffic justify it? I wouldn't think so.
Alaska to Russia cross the bearing straits might also be possible. A series of gigantic suspenson bridges has been considered but a chunnel is actually a better choice. Not a tremendously geologically active region and a chunnel avoids the ice problem. Economically the traffic might justify it but the cost would be beyond belief.At least twice the length of the chunnel - possibly three times the distance.
Connecting the Japanese islands is also probably not possible for geological reasons (earthquakes).
The north and south islands of new Zealand might be possible but I don't know the geological situation in that area.
Probably other locations where its possible but not worth the cost.
Ben
Hi lewisner:
Thats a good idea. Save them up until a complete consist can be made with hazardous matrial cars only and stop other traffic until its through. Perhaps in the wee hours of the morning. Shouldn't disrupt the schedual too much and well worth the slight delay safety wise.
Over here a truck wreck carrying such material hardly makes the news if at all. The same event on a train is page one news for days. Our news media is all about hype and sensationalism - real news has gone the way of the dodo bird. Also, most newspapers, radio and TV stations are owned by gigantic conglomerates which definately have political agendas and personal bias (of the gent who owns them). Independent news is rapidly becoming an oxymoron.
Ben
Thats a good idea. Save them up until a complete consist can be made with hazardous matrial cars only and stop other traffic until its through. Perhaps in the wee hours of the morning. Shouldn't disrupt the schedual too much and well worth the slight delay safety wise.
Over here a truck wreck carrying such material hardly makes the news if at all. The same event on a train is page one news for days. Our news media is all about hype and sensationalism - real news has gone the way of the dodo bird. Also, most newspapers, radio and TV stations are owned by gigantic conglomerates which definately have political agendas and personal bias (of the gent who owns them). Independent news is rapidly becoming an oxymoron.
Ben